Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements. Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Wikipedia articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used. Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169Auto-archiving period: 14 days |
Frequently asked questions This page is biased towards/against Trump because it mentions/doesn't mention X. Why won't you fix it?
Having a
neutral point of view does not mean giving equal
weight to all viewpoints. Rather, it refers to Wikipedia's effort to discuss topics and viewpoints in a roughly equal proportion to the degree that they are discussed in
reliable sources, which in political articles is mostly
mainstream media, although academic works are also sometimes used. For further information, please read
Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Want to add new information about Donald Trump? Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example: ... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{ Donald Trump series}}. Thanks! |
|
NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:[[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .
official White House portrait as the infobox image. ( Dec 2016, Jan 2017, Oct 2017, March 2020) (temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait, enforced when an official public-domain portrait was released on 31 October 2017)
1. Use the
Queens, New York City, U.S.
" in the infobox. (
Nov 2016,
Oct 2018,
Feb 2021) "New York City" de-linked. (
September 2020)
gaining a majority of the U.S. Electoral College" and "
receiving a smaller share of the popular vote nationwide", without quoting numbers. ( Nov 2016, Dec 2016) (Superseded by #15 since 11 February 2017)
Oct 2016) In the lead section, just write: Removed from the lead per #47.
Forbes estimates his net worth to be [$x.x] billion.
(
July 2018,
July 2018)
Many of his public statements were controversial or false." in the lead. ( Sep 2016, February 2017, wording shortened per April 2017, upheld with July 2018) (superseded by #35 since 18 February 2019)
without
prior military or government service
". (
Dec 2016)
Include a link to Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (
Jan 2017) Include a link to an archive of Trump's Twitter account in the "External links" section. (
Jan 2021)
10. Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children and wikilink it, which redirects to his section in Family of Donald Trump per AfD consensus. ( Jan 2017, Nov 2016)
12. The article title is Donald Trump, not Donald J. Trump. ( RM Jan 2017, RM June 2019)
13. Auto-archival is set for discussions with no comments for 14 days. Manual archival is allowed for (1) closed discussions, 24 hours after the closure, provided the closure has not been challenged, and (2) "answered" edit requests, 24 hours after the "answer", provided there has been no follow-on discussion after the "answer". ( Jan 2017) (amended with respect to manual archiving, to better reflect common practice at this article) ( Nov 2019)
14. Omit mention of Trump's alleged bathmophobia/fear of slopes. ( Feb 2017)
Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, …"). Accordingly the pre-RfC text ( Diff 8 Jan 2017) has been restored, with minor adjustments to past tense ( Diff 11 Feb 2018). No new changes should be applied without debate. ( RfC Feb 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2017, Feb 2017) In particular, there is no consensus to include any wording akin to "losing the popular vote". ( RfC March 2017) (Superseded by local consensus on 26 May 2017 and lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017)
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is the 45th and current president of the United States. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality." The hatnote is simply {{ Other uses}}. ( April 2017, RfC April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, April 2017, July 2017, Dec 2018) Amended by lead section rewrite on 23 June 2017 and removal of inauguration date on 4 July 2018. Lower-case "p" in "president" per Dec 2018 and MOS:JOBTITLES RfC Oct 2017. Wikilinks modified per April 2020. Wikilink modified again per July 2020. "45th" de-linked. ( Jan 2021)
Wharton School ( BS Econ.)", does not mention Fordham University. ( April 2017, April 2017, Aug 2020, Dec 2020)
20. Mention protests in the lead section with this exact wording: His election and policies
(
June 2017,
May 2018) (Note: In February 2021, when he was no longer president, the verb tense was changed from "have sparked" to "sparked", without objection.)
have sparked
numerous protests.
22. Do not call Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. Falsehoods he uttered can be mentioned, while being mindful of calling them "lies", which implies malicious intent. ( RfC Aug 2017)
Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing security concerns; after legal challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the policy's third revision.( Aug 2017, Nov 2017, Dec 2017, Jan 2018, Jan 2018) Wording updated ( July 2018) and again ( Sep 2018).
25. Do not add web archives to cited sources which are not dead. ( Dec 2017, March 2018)
26. Do not include opinions by
Michael Hayden and
Michael Morell that Trump is a "useful fool […] manipulated by Moscow"
or an "unwitting agent of the Russian Federation"
. (
RfC April 2018)
27. State that Trump falsely claimed
that Hillary Clinton started the Barack Obama birther
rumors. (
April 2018,
June 2018)
28. Include, in the Wealth section, a sentence on Jonathan Greenberg's allegation that Trump deceived him in order to get on the Forbes 400 list. ( June 2018, June 2018)
29. Include material about the Trump administration family separation policy in the article. ( June 2018)
30. Supersedes #24. The lead includes: "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist.
" (
RfC Sep 2018,
Oct 2018,
RfC May 2019)
31. Do not mention Trump's office space donation to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition in 1999. ( Nov 2018)
32. Omit from the lead the fact that Trump is the first sitting U.S. president to meet with a North Korean supreme leader. ( RfC July 2018, Nov 2018)
33. Do not mention "birtherism" in the lead section. ( RfC Nov 2018)
34. Refer to Ivana Zelníčková as a Czech model, with a link to Czechs (people), not Czechoslovakia (country). ( Jan 2019)
Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics.( RfC Feb 2019)
37. Resolved: Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. If something is borderline or debatable, the resolution does not apply. ( June 2019)
38. Do not state in the lead that Trump is the wealthiest U.S. president ever. ( RfC June 2019)
39. Supersedes #21 and #36. Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health or mental fitness for office. Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided. This does not prevent inclusion of content about temperamental fitness for office. ( RfC Aug 2019, July 2021)
40. Include, when discussing Trump's exercise or the lack thereof: He has called golfing his "primary form of exercise", although he usually does not walk the course. He considers exercise a waste of energy, because he believes the body is "like a battery, with a finite amount of energy" which is depleted by exercise.
(
RfC Aug 2019)
41. Omit book authorship (or lack thereof) from the lead section. ( RfC Nov 2019)
42. House and Senate outcomes of the impeachment process are separated by a full stop. For example: He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted of both charges by the Senate on February 5, 2020.
(
Feb 2020)
43. The rules for edits to the lead are no different from those for edits below the lead. For edits that do not conflict with existing consensus: Prior consensus is NOT required. BOLD edits are allowed, subject to normal BRD process. The mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it. ( March 2020)
44. The lead section should mention North Korea, focusing on Trump's meetings with Kim and some degree of clarification that they haven't produced clear results. ( RfC May 2020)
46. Use the caption "Official portrait, 2017" for the infobox image. ( Aug 2020, Jan 2021)
47. Do not mention Trump's net worth or Forbes ranking (or equivalents from other publications) in the lead, nor in the infobox. ( Sep 2020)
48. Supersedes #45. Trump's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic should be mentioned in the lead section. There is no consensus on specific wording, but the status quo is Trump reacted slowly to the
COVID-19 pandemic; he minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, and promoted false information about unproven treatments and the availability of testing.
(
Oct 2020,
RfC Aug 2020)
49. Supersedes #35. Include in lead: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics.
(
Dec 2020)
50. Supersedes #17. The lead sentence is: Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th
president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
(
March 2021), amended (
July 2021), inclusion of politician (
RfC September 2021)
51. Include in the lead that many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as misogynistic. ( Aug 2021 and Sep 2021)
52. Supersedes #23. The lead should contain a summary of Trump's actions on immigration, including the Muslim travel ban (cf. item 23), the wall, and the family separation policy. ( September 2021)
53. The lead should mention that Trump promotes conspiracy theories. ( October 2021)
54. Include in the lead that, quote, Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.
(
October 2021)
55. Regarding Trump's comments on the
2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia
, do not wiki-link "
Trump's comments" in this manner. (
RfC December 2021)
56. Retain the content that Trump never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan
but add context. Current wording can be altered or contextualized; no consensus was achieved on alternate wordings. (
RfC November 2021) Trump's expressions of doubt regarding the Russian Bounties Program should be included in some capacity, though there there is no consensus on a specific way to characterize these expressed doubts. (
RfC March 2022)
57. Do not mention in the lead Gallup polling that states Trump's the only president to never reach 50% approval rating. ( RfC January 2022)
58. Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. ( RfC May 2022, discussion on what to cite May 2022)
59. Do not label or categorize Trump as a far-right politician. ( RfC August 2022)
60. Insert the links described in the RfC January 2023.
61. When a thread is started with a general assertion that the article is biased for or against Trump (i.e., without a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the article), it is to be handled as follows:
{{
archive top}}
and {{
archive bottom}}
, referring to this consensus item.This does not apply to posts that are clearly in bad faith, which are to be removed on sight. ( May 2023)
62. The article's description of the five people who died during and subsequent to the January 6 Capitol attack should avoid a) mentioning the causes of death and b) an explicit mention of the Capitol Police Officer who died. ( RfC July 2023)
63. Supersedes #18. The alma mater field of the infobox reads: "University of Pennsylvania (BS)". ( September 2023)
64. Omit the {{
Very long}}
tag. (
January 2024)
65. Mention the
Abraham Accords in the article; no consensus was achieved on specific wordings. (
RfC February 2024)
Consensus #43 indicates that for the lead section, "the mere fact that an edit has not been discussed is not a valid reason to revert it." With that in mind, Space4Time3Continuum2x, could you provide a rationale for this edit? The lead is well in excess of an appropriate length and level of detail. Nikkimaria ( talk) 12:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
gives the basics in a nutshell, and six words defining the successful side ventures seem appropriate to me. Ditto the seven words explaining which families were affected by the family separation policy, the three words detailing the kind of Covid misinformation he spread, the sheer number of felony counts, and the sentence on the rollback of environmental policies. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
(First time I heard of minimization of page history - is that a thing?)Assuming you're serious, I meant "minimizing the number of page history entries". It's really the only reason one would do such a mass edit, beyond saving the wee bit of time required to start each smaller edit. ― Mandruss ☎ 14:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Minimizing page history entries is not a priority.Off-topic: today's NYT has an aerial view of the swirls and eddies on top of Trump's head. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 14:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Sequence of edits: Nikkimaria, my rvt, NikkiMaria rvt, Zaathras rvt, Nikkimaria rvt, Zaathras rvt. Seems to me that Nikkimaria shouldn’t have made their first revert after I challenged their first edit because there was no consensus for a change at the time, and there isn’t one now (are you the second editor supporting removal)? I still think that "promoted misinformation about testing and unproven treatments" would have been the better version but one year isn't long enough for me to want to go through s.th. like that archived discussion again. What about consensus #48? Completely ignored by every editor in the 2023 discussion (I plead non-involvement in the 2020 RfC with resulting unawareness of #48 , and I'm aware of ignorance of the law not being an excuse) that, in practice, appears to have resulted (who can tell?) in a new consensus and new wording of the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 11:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
See #Lead: Consensus 43 vio? for limited-participation discussion of a proposed ban of mass edits, such as this one, at this article. Radical, perhaps, but when has that stopped this pack of rebellious anarchists? See the linked discussion for (imo) strong supporting arguments.
A big hurdle is finding workable language for a consensus item. "No mass edits" would likely be unconstructive and ineffective. That's the sole purpose of this thread; if workable language can be hammered out, we can proceed separately with a !vote. If not, any further discussion would be pointless.
Categorical Opposers of the whole concept can sit this one out, as can Supporters who just want to say they support. Both groups should wait for the !vote, if any occurs. ― Mandruss ☎ 20:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
The argument for something like this is clearly illustrated in the issue that started it all.I don't think this makes sense either. You posit that if Space4T had responded "correctly" he would have reverted those edits individually with separate rationales. If I had made every change in that edit individually, to revert some but not others he would have had to revert each individually with separate rationales anyways, and in that case would not even have had the opportunity to bundle several with the same rationale (which seems to have been the case, from his explanation above), as he would if the original edits were combined.
If I had made every change in that edit individually, to revert some but not others he would have had to revert each individually with separate rationales anywaysQuite true. I didn't mean to say that would've been part of the extra work for him; merely that it was part of the need for the extra work for him. Confused yet?
Bundling changes in this way is common practiceThis article is probably unusual in its highly developed processes that have evolved over the years, and in its commitment to them (the consensus list is only part of it). It seems to have a culture and personality all its own, and editors must think it's superior (or at least no worse) or the culture and personality wouldn't have survived for so long. It's not like a handful of process wonk weirdos are to blame for creating this and keeping it going; I've seen a dozen or two "regulars" come and go since 2015. Few voices have said that this article can't innovate in these areas because new arrivals can't be asked to adapt in relatively small ways. This might help explain why bundling doesn't work well here. ― Mandruss ☎ 06:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
revert — edit C is not applicable per [policy]; invoking consensus #66. In my mind, you wouldn't be able to revert a mass edit simply because it is a mass edit, and you wouldn't be able to revert a mass edit even if you thought that part of the edit failed to comply with some rule, unless you explicitly state this in the edit summary.
put all of [my] individual rationales in a single edit summary. Otherwise, it is extremely tedious for the editor I reverted to figure out what exactly I'm opposing. And hyperbole ignores reality—no one is compacting eight different edits into one edit. Maybe four, max. Explaining a rationale for three separate types of edits isn't nearly as tedious as doing the same for eight. Cessaune [talk] 22:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
you wouldn't be able to revert a mass edit simply because it is a mass edit- Of course. The consensus item could state that explicitly, although I think it could be made apparent without doing so.Hyperbole? I see upwards of ten distinct unrelated changes in Nikkimaria's edit, and one could quite reasonably object to any one of them without objecting to others (even nearby others). And, as I say below, one could object to all of the changes, so we're talking about potentially upwards of ten rationales. And we've seen mass edits even larger than Nikkimaria's. No hyperbole here; if anything, the opposite, whatever the word is for that.
the reverter needs to disagree with at least one of them- Sure, if you think it's useful to require a rationale for at least one objection, I have no problem with that despite not really seeing the point. Requiring more than one, no. ― Mandruss ☎ 22:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Otherwise, it is extremely tedious for the editor I reverted to figure out what exactly I'm opposing.They don't need to know that at this juncture. The objective of your revert is not to help them address your content concerns; it's to get them to break down the edit so you can more easily and more effectively convey your content concerns. Then they can address them. You're "opposing" the bundling—a process objection, nothing more. When we revert a violation of the 24-hour rule, does our editsum say anything about the content involved? No, because it's irrelevant to the revert. ― Mandruss ☎ 03:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
a process objection, nothing more—you say that as if we aren't defining process right now. Cessaune [talk] 14:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
There's a length limit--
we've seen mass edits even larger than Nikkimaria's--
The objective of your revert is not to help them address your content concerns [...]-- You provide the three (or twelve) edit summaries after the split, which is the point of the split and the consensus item. Intermediary step, yes. Takes more time for the bold editor, yes, and the way to avoid that is to effing refrain from mass edits. Takes more time for the reverter, not so much. Wastes that time, no.Now we're getting circular. Don't make me invoke IDHT. ― Mandruss ☎ 01:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
getting circular? I've already agreed with you! I privately disagree, but I am willing to forgo all that in the name of compromise, and I feel like I made that pretty obvious below.
If, for example, I disagree with three separate edits, I would have to provide edit summaries for each of them. I don't see why, if the three edits are bundled together, that that fact needs to change.betrays your failure to understand my point,
The objective of your revert is not to help them address your content concerns; it's to get them to break down the edit so you can more easily and more effectively convey your content concerns.You're improperly conflating and mixing the content objections with the process objection.You're also stuck on "three edits" when I've already made the point that it's sometimes a lot more than three—
we've seen mass edits even larger than Nikkimaria's—and too many to cram into a single editsum. You have neither countered that point nor accepted it.Hence my frustration.Yes, I'm backing up after prematurely agreeing to the compromise. Apologies for that.I hope this provides some clarification; but I don't think I could be any clearer. ― Mandruss ☎ 22:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
The objective of your revert is not to help them address your content concerns; it's to get them to break down the edit so you can more easily and more effectively convey your content concernsis a simple matter of opinion, an opinion I don't fully agree with.
Pointless to argue this point, so I let it drop. If it's true that we've seen edits literally five times larger than Nikkimaria's, I'm in the wrong, I guess. Cessaune [talk] 03:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
so I let it drop.And continued to argue as if the point hadn't been made.Since we appear to have irreconcilable differences, and there is no other participation, it is now a dead issue. Thanks for playing. ― Mandruss ☎ 03:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I reverted the deletion of the Trump rollback of environmental policies and of the number of felony counts, among other changes to the lead. Now the sentences have been tagged as excessive details. Are the tags justified?
He weakened environmental protections, rolling back more than 100 environmental policies and regulations.
Proposed version:He is on trial in New York on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, and was indicted in Florida on 40 felony counts related to his mishandling of classified documents; in Washington, D.C., on four felony counts of conspiracy and obstruction for efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election; and in Georgia on ten charges of racketeering and other felonies committed in an effort to overturn the state's 2020 election results.
He is on trial in New York for falsifying business records, and was indicted in Florida for mishandling of classified documents, in Washington, D.C., for conspiracy and obstruction for efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and in Georgia for racketeering and other felonies committed in an effort to overturn the state's 2020 election results.
Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could you remove the “severely” from the de-regulation section (regarding firearm policy), it comes off as biased. ArcTheMedic ( talk) 20:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have been reading through a number of chats on wikipedia, and this one should be flagged for violating the Neutrality policy, especially given the calls for neutrality in the chat have been rejected 2601:246:5A83:D090:9C52:9A1E:C889:AB5A ( talk) 23:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Please note that this was a bad faith copypasta thread. The IP pasted the exact same message into multiple unrelated Talk pages in a lazy attempt to cause disruption. We do not need to waste our time dealing with trolls. Any further such threads should simply be removed per WP:DENY. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 08:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
{{
POV}}
to multiple articles? "Flagging" things the wrong way (being un-extended-confirmed, they couldn't have done it the right way), being wrong about the easily-misunderstood policy, and being a mere IPv6 editor with unknown other editing history do not constitute trolling or "clearly bad faith". They were not verbally abusive or libtard-hating over-the-top disrespectful like the other guy. Give a little respect, receive a little respect in return.Trolling is posting for the sole purpose of causing disruption; it's about intent, not effect (
troll, sense 2). There is little to no evidence that was this editor's motive, and per AGF we grant the benefit of the doubt at this article. If you're going to use the word around these parts, please use it correctly. ―
Mandruss
☎ 01:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)@ Bob K31416: Re this revert - "illustrate" per Merriam Webster definition "to provide with visual features intended to explain or decorate". The image contains nothing illustrative of either Arizona or the 2020 campaign. It's just one more photograph of Trump in front of a crowd that could have been taken anywhere since 2016, and the article already has a 2016 Arizona campaign image that at least says "Arizona". The 2020 campaign article has comparatively few images, and if you have side-by-side images — captioned that they were taken in Nevada on October 27 and in Arizona on the next day — it shows the frenetic pace shortly before the election and enlivens a long scroll down section after section of campaign details. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 15:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
According to these RS Trump is the official nominee... PBS March 2024 - NBC March 2024 - AP News March 2024 etc...etc...
Unless a majority of sources use the word "dominate" I don't think it deserves to be in wikivoice...
I thought about including citations but that isn't where they go. DN ( talk) 01:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
This section could really be trimmed down, given that many of the cases have their own articles. For example, On March 30, 2023, a New York grand jury indicted Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. On April 4, he surrendered and was arrested and arraigned; he pleaded not guilty and was released. The trial began on April 15, 2024.
tells us little about the case.
Jack Upland (
talk) 03:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
In December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump was disqualified from holding office due to his role in the Capitol attack until the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision via Trump v. Anderson in March 2024.I didn't get any anywhere due to this 2:1 low-participation discussion . Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I think we should remove it, or at least shorten it. It currently gets just as much coverage here as it does at the presidency article, which makes no sense since the presidency section should be summarizing the presidency article. Since it only gets a paragraph or two there, we don't really need to mention it in the summary here. I could potentially understand giving it a sentence in a section somewhere, but we currently give way too much weight to it. This article will need to cut a few things to make room for the impending election and the impending verdicts in his cases, and it is already very large. This seems like it is something that can go, and it can stay at the presidency article. QuicoleJR ( talk) 20:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
the presidency section should be summarizing the presidency article: according to which WP policy? Seems we've had similar discussions before, as in "let's just use the lead of the 'Presidency' article". Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
We should remove highly significant content because why? Because an editor speculates about what might happen months from now? At least wait until there actually is such cause. There are many less significant nuggets for any future trims. SPECIFICO talk 02:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
In December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump was disqualified from holding office due to his role in the Capitol attack until the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision via Trump v. Anderson in March 2024.#2: In two weeks or so, when the verdict is in, we should be able to update and shorten the section on the Manhattan criminal case considerably. Lafayette Square will keep cropping up as long as Trump is running for office. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 12:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
We should remove highly significant content because why?Because WP:SUMMARY is a guideline, and it says that we should make the presidency section summarize the important parts of the presidency article. Giving this one controversy as many words here as at that article is not compatible with the guideline. I will agree with Space4 that some of the post-presidency stuff should also be trimmed. QuicoleJR ( talk) 12:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
It hasn't received much attention- you probably didn't notice it when it was mentioned in some other context. Quoting myself from another discussion: Baker/Glasser's The Divider devotes an entire chapter to The Battle of Lafayette Square, where "Trump had staged what would become the most infamous photo-op of his presidency". [1]
Work cited
|
---|
|
Bob. The purpose and function of search engines is to show you that which you seek. Unfortunately in this case, it appears you searched for and found one of the many thousands of deflections. equivocations, and revisions of events covered in the NPOV content of our Trump pages. SPECIFICO talk 19:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Don't confuse Bill Barr with Smokey the Bear. If anything, we should be more explicit to debunk the various denials. SPECIFICO talk 06:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Space4Time3Continuum2x, SPECIFICO, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, Jack Upland, Mandruss, Riposte97, Bob K31416, Slatersteven, Muboshgu, and Nikkimaria: I'm seeing a general agreement to, if not remove it, reduce it to a sentence or two. I am not currently seeing enough support to remove all mention of it. The only ones supporting the status quo are SPECIFICO and Space4. Pinging everyone to make sure I am correct in that assessment. Where do people think that the sentence should be placed in the article? QuicoleJR ( talk) 18:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
I note that we currently link to Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church, bypassing the far-less-detailed content in the Presidency article. That violates principles of hierarchical structure and deprives readers of the opportunity to be satisfied by the level of detail in the Presidency article. One click for each successive level of detail, without skipping any. ― Mandruss ☎ 22:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Why?Didn't I already answer that?
{{
Main}}
allows section links; see examples there. Apparently the community is not concerned that the hatnote says "article". I'm certainly not. If this "misleads" readers, that's already happening in countless other places in the encyclopedia.Let's not get too hung up on semantics. "Main article:" can be interpreted as "Next level of detail:" without costing me any sleep. I honestly doubt readers care.But the semantics are not entirely unimportant. Any problem can be avoided by using {{
Further}}
instead of {{
Main}}
, creating the hatnote "Further information:". This also supports section links.Anyway, your concern becomes moot if the topic is deprived of its own subsection; in that case, there is no hatnote but rather an inline piped section link. ―
Mandruss
☎ 23:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)The Presidency article also has few details that aren't also contained in this article- Aren't we talking about dramatically reducing the details in this article? Similar levels of detail is precisely what should be avoided.It goes to the system design principle that data redundancy is bad design: "Data redundancy leads to data anomalies and corruption and generally should be avoided by design [...]". Specific to our situation, we should avoid creating redundant levels of detail that have to be coordinated between articles. To some unknown degree, we surely fail to coordinate adequately, creating discrepancies ("corruption") across articles. An editor makes a change to this article and fails to look at one or more sub-articles to see if they also need changing. Cross-article coordination not being a priority for time-limited volunteers, the discrepancy no doubt often goes unnoticed for years, if not forever. Opportunities for that are to be minimized, and that's done by avoiding similar levels of detail. (It's still possible to create discrepancies, but less easy. You can make a change at the more-detailed level without affecting the less-detailed level, in which case no discrepancy is created.) ― Mandruss ☎ 02:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO: Please explain to me how the fact that the protestors started a small fire the night before the photo-op is relevant to our biography of Donald Trump. QuicoleJR ( talk) 17:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
References
@ Space4Time3Continuum2x: I don't think we need to list each and every individual charge in the documents case, when "among other charges" will summarize it. We already use similar wording for the Georgia racketeering case. QuicoleJR ( talk) 14:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
jointly with a personal aide, single counts of conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding government documents, corruptly concealing records, concealing a document in a federal investigation and scheming to conceal their effortswith
along with several other charges, some being joint charges with a personal aidemay not be intended to whitewash but sure looks like it. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 15:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
You have me at a disadvantage with an unlimited number of bold edits per day vs. three reverts, so for now I'm just venting. The self-funding billionaire business whiz paying $750 in taxes per year because of business losses is not an unimportant detail. As for the WWE, let's wait and see if the wrestling enthusiasts who think it's an important part of his bio will weigh in. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO: I removed the criminal referral by the Jan 6 commission because AFAICT, the DOJ did not follow it up and actually charge Trump. If my assessment was incorrect, please inform me. QuicoleJR ( talk) 17:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Nikkimaria: You made a bold edit to the lead, were reverted, and then tagged the reverted material instead of starting a discussion about the merits of your bold edit on the Talk page. Seems to me that that is an improper use of a tag. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 17:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
{{
Very long}}
tag, which we have already decided to omit as consensus 64. ―
Mandruss
☎ 01:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)I am going to revert Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk · contribs)'s removal of the mention of 85-15 Wareham Place. Besides having a Wikipedia article, the location is (as the cite says) the address on Trump's birth certificate. I will reword to clarify this. Ylee ( talk) 23:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
moved to Midland Parkway a few years later, exact date unknown: 1950. Adding the info that Trump's parents were living at 85-15 Wareham Place is a biographical improvement — really? This won't be the next Lincoln's birthplace historical monument. Trump's birthplace is Jamaica Hospital, and somehow I can't picture them even affixing a plaque honoring the event. The house on Wareham Place made its way into the bio in 2016, wrongly claiming that Trump lived there until Junior High. The cite for this false claim, this NYT article, does not verify it; it says he grew up in the mansion on Midland Parkway. No idea why the place where Trump's parents lived from 1940 to 1950 (with Trump from 1946 until 1950) even has a WP page; seems undue to me. There's a long list of biographical stuff that we cut due to size. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 11:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Your original edit, addition in bold:Donald John Trump was born on June 14, 1946, at Jamaica Hospital in Queens, New York City,[1] the fourth child of Fred Trump and Mary Anne MacLeod Trump. Trump grew up with older siblings Maryanne, Fred Jr., and Elizabeth and younger brother Robert in the Jamaica Estates neighborhood of Queens, and attended the private Kew-Forest School from kindergarten through seventh grade.[2][3][4] Trump.
Current edit:Donald John Trump was born on June 14, 1946, at Jamaica Hospital in Queens, New York City,[1] the fourth child of Fred Trump and Mary Anne MacLeod Trump. Trump grew up with older siblings Maryanne, Fred Jr., and Elizabeth and younger brother Robert at 85-15 Wareham Place in the Jamaica Estates neighborhood of Queens, and attended the private Kew-Forest School from kindergarten through seventh grade.[2][3][4][5]
Donald John Trump was born on June 14, 1946, at Jamaica Hospital in Queens, New York City,[1] the fourth child of Fred Trump and Mary Anne MacLeod Trump, living at 85-15 Wareham Place in Jamaica Estates, Queens, New York. Trump grew up with older siblings Maryanne, Fred Jr., and Elizabeth and younger brother Robert, and attended the private Kew-Forest School from kindergarten through seventh grade.[2][3][4][5]
Until 2018, the media rarely referred to Trump's falsehoods as lies, including when he repeated demonstrably false statements.
This has more to do with the media than Trump "the man" or whatever the standard is for inclusion here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 06:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
President Donald Trump has been accused of dishonesty, spreading falsehoods, misrepresenting facts, distorting news, passing on inaccuracies and being loose with the truth. But does he lie?Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 11:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Are these "/current consensus" pages even real?. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 10:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)